Tag Archives: feminism

Aux armes, citoyennes

7
by politics • Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The other day a storm erupted on Twitter and in blogs about an article in a magazine. The argument was about little*, really, a storm in a teacup, but it raged for several days. The even odder thing was that it didn’t pit right against left, but consisted of feminists, female and male, arguing with each other as if enemies.

The popular mythology is that feminism has triumphed, men and women equal in society. A great symbolic photo in November showed President Obama being greeted on arrival by female Governor-General, Prime Minister, ACT Chief Minister. Women head major corporations, institutions, public service departments; succeed in all professions (including the military).

But underneath the neat symbolic photos and the few excellent women at the top, things are not quite so rosy. A woman prime minister? She is the subject of misogyny, often really nasty (with threats to kill her), every day. Women’s pay is still much lower; while one or two make it to the top, most of the next management levels are still men; the battle for paid maternity leave revealed many politicians who want women back in the 1950s; equal opportunity legislation is attacked; sexist jokes flourish in “anti-pc” times; adverts openly portray women as either dumb or harridans; many women proudly say “oh no, I’m not a feminist”.

In Australia and elsewhere, gender equality, taking off like a rocket in the 60s and 70s, is falling back to Earth as the last booster fails.

The bad guys are winning, and the rocket falls with gathering speed, back to where it started. Many of us I think sense this, but don’t quite know what to do about it. Which is why, I think, the storm erupted the other day. Nerves are edgy, opinions are varied, approaches are debated, solutions hotly contested. The heat is on and temperatures are fraying.

Much the same in other areas, most notably conservation, gay rights, education, social services. Everywhere you look it seems, conservative, religious, business, political operators, with the active help of large sections of the media, are pushing back successfully against the social and environmental advances of the 60s and 70s. The political scene is like the aftermath of a battle, a battlefield where small groups are trying to fight a conservation battle here, a childcare battle there, a battle for gay marriage on the other side, support for unemployed being challenged on one hand, glass ceilings are replaced with concrete ones over the road. If we fight these battles singly we’ll lose them all.

Time I think, not just for all women to work together to change views from “I’m not a feminist” to “I’m not a feminist, but …”, to “of course I’m a feminist, want to make something of it?”, but for all progressive groups to work together. It was hard coming out of the fifties, when the conservatives were taken by surprise by the progressive movement. This time they are ready for us and have the weapons.

Progressives united can never be defeated.

* this is not to say the issue, the use of the word “hysterical” to describe a woman writer’s tv appearance, was not of interest/importance, just that by any measure it was a small issue in relation to the reaction. Although that reaction was compounded, rather like a nuclear chain reaction, by the vehemence of the opinions expressed and the increased personalising of the debate.

Note
The original article by Justin Shaw is here
Three of the major subsequent debaters have also posted on the topic (as have many others apparently):
Tammi Jonas
Ben Pobjie
Jennifer Wilson

If there are any blog readers who like what I have been doing on the blog it would be good if you could put in a vote for me in the “Shorty Awards” blogger category. Really good! You have to say, in a few words, why you are voting for me (@watermelon_man) in the blogger category. And that’s it really.

Lipstick red

8
by Atheism • Tags: , , , , , ,

The other day the Australian government rejected a scheme for food labelling which had been proposed by its own review committee. Instead of all the fine print and misleading concentrations and secret coded additives there was meant to be a “traffic light” system of red amber green signs on labels. Red would be high concentrations of stuff like sugar and fat that was bad for you and so on. Easy to see, understand, respond to, so naturally the people who sell groceries fought a furious and successful campaign to prevent its introduction (shame Nicola Roxon, shame).

Got me thinking though that the concept could be applied much more widely – newspapers, tv programs, sports, children’s pageants, farming practices, shock jocks, toys, and so on. But the obvious place to start, give it a trial run, get people used to the idea, is with religion.

Plenty of ingredients that could be considered, but let’s keep the trial run simple and just base the traffic light warning (to be put on a large billboard outside each place of worship) on misogyny. This sums up the rest anyway.

In various religions at various times, including right now, women have been stoned, executed, had acid flung on face, put into weird clothes that cover every mm of body up to and including hands and eyes, made to sit in back of worship house, included in polygamy, raped as children, refused permission to drive, refused permission to communicate outside family, encouraged to jump on to funeral pyres, had children removed, made subservient to head of house, had genitals mutilated, refused education and kept ignorant, refused birth control and abortions, refused positions of authority within the religion.

So we could add up points, work out where each religion stands. Oh, what the hell, it would be a red light outside every place of religion wouldn’t it? Lipstick red.

Are we there yet Mum?

2
by politics • Tags: , ,

And so NSW has a female premier at last. Of the eight states and territories, six have now had female leaders, with SA and Tasmania the hold outs. So 75% of states have had female leaders, the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Opposition Leader are both women, numerous ministers are female, many other women in all state and federal parliaments, and we are of course famous as the second country in the world to give women the vote. So, doing pretty well here as far as women in politics is concerned eh? Time for the smug look.

Um, no, probably not, if truth be told. Of the six female led jurisdictions, five have had only one female leader (only the ACT has had two). Of the seven female leaders all except one have been Labor politicians (again, the ACT provides the only exception). Often a woman has been given the top job only when a government was on its last legs, faced with an unwinnable election to follow (ACT and Queensland are exceptions), much as women are often preselected in unwinnable seats or low positions on the Senate tickets, and rarely get blue ribbon seats or head of the Senate team. Unlike Britain, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Germany, India, Norway, Sri Lanka, Israel, and nearly 40 other countries, we have not yet had a national political female leader. Women are still not, it seems to me, treated as a fully equal part of the political landscape. Nor will they be as long as their attainment of a top job is met with the media description "Mother of two becomes Premier", or with analyses of weight, dress sense and hair styles.

It was said of one British actress, noted for some odd behaviour, that just because someone plays the roles of women who are intelligent, sensitive, thoughtful, charming, funny, it doesn't mean that they have any of those characteristics personally. In a more general sense, just because a human being is a woman means that they will by definition behave better than men (although it must be said that this would rarely take much effort at all).

I don't think having women in politics means that countries become less warlike, more in favour of social justice, more environmentally aware. I have two words for anyone who thought that – Maggie Thatcher. And another two – Sarah Palin. And if it is indeed true that the new female Premier (and mother of two) of NSW pals around with the Right Wing power thugs who make and break premiers in the state, then don't expect her to have her sights set on the light on the hill. I have no more expectations of a Keneally premiership than I would of a Tripodi one.

But I do think that women should be represented in the body politic, at all levels, and in all capacities, whether saint or sinner, foolish or wise, nasty or nice, in proportion to their percentage in the population. Which means there should be more women than men in local councils, state parliaments, federal parliament. Of the 42 premiers we have so far had, 21 more than Ms Keneally should have been women. And of the 26 prime ministers, why were 14 not women?

To argue for a lesser representation, a lesser level of responsibility, would be to continue to argue, though perhaps in a more subtle way, for the kind of attitudes that brave women, especially in Britain, risked, and actually lost, their lives to overturn. Votes for women means not just turning up on polling day and then going back to the kitchen. It means having an equal opportunity for any desired level of political involvement.

With all due respect to Ms Keneally, we're not there yet.

All David Horton's earlier writing is here.

Sunburnt country

by Media • Tags: , , , , , , , ,

So the tourism industry is looking for a new way to promote Australia overseas after one or two less than totally successful previous attempts. What should we boast about, they seem to be asking, and advertising people were quick to point out that it wasn't so simple, that boasting about something in one state might well put the noses of the good folks of another state out of joint, and vice versa. But the whole concept seems to me wrong anyway, wrong in the way that big bananas and giant prawns and world's tallest buildings are wrong.

One of the things that gets up people's noses about America is the endless triumphalism and exceptionalism that comes from the American media, and some American politicians.

So Australia could be the opposite of that. We could have a campaign that is based on not having a campaign. Refusing to boast, to claim superiority, to claim endless wonderful magical experiences which are almost bound to end in disappointment when the actual experiences of, say, Bondi Beach, or outback bus trips, fail to live up to the glossy hype.

Not only could we become the country that boasts about not boasting, but we could also boast about a lot of other things we either don't do now, or, with a stroke of a Peter Garrett pen, could stop doing tomorrow. We don't have people wearing guns to political meetings or church services; we don't have nuclear power stations; we don't have a theocracy; we don't kill our native fauna; we don't clear forests; we don't have armed soldiers in our streets; we don't have GM crops; we don't kill whales; we don't let people who can't buy health care die; we don't, usually, have violence based on ethnic or religious divisions; we don't have silly national costumes; we don't execute our citizens; we don't have too many people; we don't pretend that oppression of women is culture. What else can you think of that we don't and shouldn't have, or do and shouldn't have (I'll drop Peter a line)?

So my advertising campaign would be based on a black screen, with a voice over (from anyone except Jack Thompson who has done every documentary voiceover in the last 100 years) which says "There are many things Australia doesn't have and doesn't want. We like it that way. If you want to come and fail to experience things sadly common elsewhere then by all means drop in. But we don't care if you don't. The fewer people who know the secret the better really. So if you come, don't tell your friends. It will be our little secret."

I believe there is an award for the winning entry and  I reckon I'm a shoo-in to collect it. What do you reckon?

All David Horton's earlier writing is here.